ArticleBMJ open2021
Establishing best practices in cancer online support groups: protocol for a realist review.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A National Virtual Peer Support Group for Women Veterans Living with Breast Cancer: Lessons from the Field.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- How Cancer Online Support Groups Work, for Whom, and in What Circumstances: Realist Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Rural female veterans' experiences of VA care and a VA telehealth outreach program.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Using Individual Service Funds (ISFs) to Improve Access to Self-Directed Support for Adults With Intellectual Disabilities: A Participatory Realist Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2025Review
- "Crying in the Wilderness"-The Use of Web-Based Support in Telomere Biology Disorders: Thematic Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Navigating the emotional landscape: exploring caregivers' journey alongside breast cancer survivors with chronic pain.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Clinical research framework proposal for ketogenic metabolic therapy in glioblastoma.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Development of a Community-Based Communication Intervention among Latin Caregivers of Patients Coping with Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cancer survivorship in urban people living with cancer following primary treatment: A secondary analysis of qualitative interview data.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Content analysis of patient support groups related to myositis on Facebook.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Cancer Pain Experience Through the Lens of Patients and Caregivers: Mixed Methods Social Media Study.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
- Status of Using Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Patients with Cancer in Korea: an Online Survey of Online Cancer Support Groups (KCSG PC21-20).Cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Self-help friendliness in cancer care: A cross-sectional study among self-help group leaders in Germany.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionConsiderable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their-sometimes contrasting-outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson's five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021250046.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.